BrewerFan

Sure...but as I said before, I really think the College game is almost not enough of a challenge for him. I realize that sounds stupid in this context, but he made all the right decisions his Fresh year, most of last year and then he started trying to extend plays and he's passed up that 8 yard slant on 2nd and 4 and tries to get that big play down the field. Edit-think, not thank. Think Rodgers during his struggles. His OL was overmatched, his team was just not as good(Alt(LT), Fischer(RT), Estime(RB), are all exciting and played really well, but it was that defensive front that just dominated the game. And still, Williams was bouncing around. He played undisciplined, he got them out of the game and it snowballed, but the way he can throw from every platform, the way he can throw on the run...he threw a ball for a 4 yard completion that was incredible. Had a big edge in his face on a naket boot, and he throw the ball almost like a submariner and got it under and around him, hit his guy in stride from ~10 yards away. Even though it was a minimal gain, it was an impressive play. But sure, he was bad today. He also came into today with nearly 1000 drop back pass attempts and he'd thrown a total of 10 picks. So I don't know how much weight I'd put in a single game vs a career of excellence(including a Heisman).

I don't know why or if Carolina would do that. Maybe they think a big WRer for their struggling young QB would help him. I was more just curious what the opinions would be on taking a pick 2 years down the road for our most explosive offensive player who has been limited by injury, a limited route tree and if he figures it out, by the time the 2025 draft comes, you'll be paying him whatever a good WRer goes for at that point, or you'll have a freak athlete who's unreliable due to injury and inconsistent hands. I think Watson will figure it out. I think he came from just about the worst school to develop WRers, but that's the risk/reward. Generally a first another year out is equal to a 2nd in this current draft, but when you're as bad as Carolina is, that's...probably not the case.

This reminds of that old, "The same people who say X are the same people saying Y right now," and they're always diametrically opposed view points. 1-I will NOT say the Brewers "ruined his career." He's 27 years old. 2-I AM absolutely baffled why they offered him arbitration and then did not bring him up. And splitting hairs by saying, "well, he was ONLY pretty good when he came back, but he was still as hot as he'd been. We brought Mitchell up at the end of the season to give him a couple ABs. The least we could have done is at least bring him up to give him a couple weeks worth of At Bats. I think that seems wrong. I think what he does next year is immaterial to the argument being made this year. We were sooo desperate for offense and Hiura's crushing RHPing two years ago and then sits after ever productive game and sits vs most RHPing and then this year when our DHs are just atrocious, he is twiddling his thumbs in AAA. I don't care what he does now. The idea that I'd enjoy "blaming the Brewers" is silly and a weird defense.

RUMOR- Panthers have called to check on the availability of Christian Watson Hypothetically, WHAT if you could get the Panthers '25 1st rd pick for Watson? Do you make that deal? Given the absolute disaster that the Panthers appear to be at the moment...it's a huge risk, but they are going nowhere fast. It'd be easy to envision that '25 pick being a top ~5 pick. I love Watson, but as the Packers are in a BIT of a rebuild, that could come in extremely handy. It could also...maybe, possibly give them an out where they would be able to use that pick to trade down even a year later into the Arch Manning draft and have a couple premium picks there. I know this is such an distant concept and a million things could happen(and they're NOT specifically offering anything in particular at this time), I just thought it was worth asking. I'm not trading him for a 2nd, even if it's the 1st 2nd rd pick in this years draft, but a future 1st? I think I might have to take that and trust the rest of the Packers WRers. It also seems like the type of move a really forward thinking team that isn't sure if they've got their QB of the future just might make. I'll assume I'll get a resounding 'No' on this and I understand, but a team that bad, it warrants consideration.

You're crazy😂 Seriously though, I'm pretty high on Maye and have said as much on this thread and I think he goes 1-1 9 years out of 10, but I think Williams is just on another level. The worst case would be Minnesota and Chicago getting Maye and Williams. SUCH a bad year for Chicago and Minnesota to be terrible and have a very good chance at 2 of the top picks.

I don't think we need it to be Giannis and 4 shooters any longer. We have Dame who can break anyone down off the dribble, Giannis who is a menace in the open court OR in iso in the half court and Middleton who's great at catch and shoot, OR at getting to his sport and hitting a contested mid range jumper. That is the guy that everyone uses as a comp. He makes incredibly smart decisions, moves the ball, rebounds and plays great defense. I'm more than happy with him as the starting SG with Dame/Middleton/Giannis/Lopez. And you can just run an actual offense around him. Lets see Dame coming off some picks. That's something he's never done much of because he's always been so ball dominant, but I just think back to Reggie Miller or Ray Allen and they'd run multiple screens for him and that also opens up the backside as you have the pickers who people sleep on(Especially if it's a guy like Dame). Of course, the way people are gassing up Marjon, maybe he really has made that MASSIVE jump and he's the starting 2.

Not even a little crazy to me. That's been the priority...IMO, all year. It was great watching him perform well early on...but just as we should keep in mind the OL is not performing well, we should also consider who we've played or beaten. One team that's got a good front in Det and even that's not great. It has one really exceptional player and just solid depth. But ATL, Nola, Chicago and LV. That's not all that impressive. I'd give Love this year and next and as I've said in my previous post, the top priority has to be the OL, but above all that, a fair and honest evaluation of Love. He looks to me like he's going to be the answer. Couldn't have walked the ball to Watson any better, but it was tight coverage. But then you have the 1st pick where he threw into a triangle of Raiders defenders(probably a pick even if Spillane doesn't get it). And then the one to Watson...that one hurts because I think Love puts that on Watson, but he had to move in the pocket to avoid the pressure and just came back to him too late. But ultimately the only thing that's clear is that we don't have clarity yet on our QB of the future. Being capable of making throws and reliably and consistently making them are not the same.

No, the OL has not been fine, it's been bad. If I was to point to one particular starter who's been bad, without All-22 or anything else, it's Myers. He's the one who just looks lost. Newman of course was even worse, but he's not a starter. Walker hasn't been a turnstyle, but I'd argue when he DOES get beaten, he's beaten worse. Tom will get beaten on a bullrush and get walked back into Love's lap, but he has that Bakhtiari-esque ability to maintain his balance and at least give Love a chance. Walker will get beat inside and he gets beat more cleanly. I still think we've got something in Walker, but the thing you had when Bakhtiari was good, was at least one absolute rock on the OL where you could slide your protection away from him and leave him, even vs elite edge rushers, one on one. When you don't have that and you have to chip more or just help more, you're starting off at a disadvantage. Ideally, you could go and get a LT in Alt in the 1st round and then package your 2nd rd picks and move back into the 1st for a guy like Mims. I know people are more in favor of trading back, but we'll have 10 or 11 more picks this year? I think you go quality over quantity when your issues are so clear at one position of need. That'd allow Tom to settle in at Center and Walker could play RG and you have a more physical, more athletic OL that's more balanced in it's pass pro and it's run blocking. And if there's ever a year to do that, it'd be this year. And obviously those are just the two names of players who are in the top ~10-15 range and then in the ~25 range at the moment, I'm sure that'll change come draft time. Who knows who the Packers will value, but we know they didn't have a 1st round grade on Broderick Jones this year...and he had an outstanding 1st start for the Steelers this week. Also, I'm sure people will point out that Bakh was a 4th rd pick and we find OL in the later rounds. This is true, but not something I'd count on when looking at the future of our OL.

Yes. Both things can be true. Capers was a defensive genius and yet BJ Raji was in coverage for a rather memorable game. I think MLF is a good offensive coach, but I cannot defend him while Joe Barry is their DC. If it's above him, it's a sign the Packers don't fully trust him or having given him the authority to make hiring decisions and if it's his choice, then...what the hell are you doing Matt? But the scheme? Every scheme looks bad when you're losing yardage on early downs and getting behind the sticks. I don't think we should be surprised that there are issues(one play 3 receivers were within ~5-7 yards of each other down the left hash) with young players when...this entire year is about transitioning from one of the oldest teams to the youngest team in the NFL. Youth+terrible OL play and it's virtually impossible to look good as an offensive coach. Then you take out Aaron Jones, you neuter your Play Action game, you have longer developing routes and a 1st year starter(I understand it's his 4th year in the league) and...it's just not going to be good. All of this.

Yeah, it'll really suck when Adames leaves. The energy he brings, even when he's not playing...it's an intangible that you obviously can't quantify. I love how he plays(sans his swing at the first pitch no matter what approach). But he plays the game like a kid...because it IS a game and he's a 27 year old man living out his dream. It's great to get to watch him. I don't get the impression he's just dying to get to free agency. I'm sure he's excited, but it feels like it's Burnes priority and with Adames, it feels like it's kinda on the back burner. That may be an unfair take for the later, but...that's just me.

1-Sure, check with all of them. They watch him more than Casually, BUT...the little I watched, he looked pretty fluid and comfortable there. He wasn't firing the ball over there like Machado 8 feet into foul territory, but he certainly looked like he could approximate Monasterio's defense. But this observation is kinda like someone who watches parts of ~10 Bucks games and then tells you how a players shot looks. 2-Wiemer has generally struggled to adjust to the next level. It's not an issue of bat speed. Not even sure it's an issue of recognition. He has a high effort swing, he's a little overly aggressive IMO. I think he'll be fine, but there's probably a ceiling on his BA. I'd like to see him back in the OF to start next year...but since there are not enough spots, start him in AAA, call him up when you have a need. 3-NOTHING highlighted this more than his bases loaded at bat in game 1 that could have helped blow that game open(immediately before the Tyrone Taylor LD Double Play). He just looked like he was taking bad, defensive swings. 96, 96, 97, but little movement and all in the same location. I've repeatedly said he reminds me of Trea Turner(a poor mans Turner, but a similar type of player) and I would not give up on him yet. I'm not even close to giving up on him. I think he's still got a 3-5 year .265/350/.425 peak in him. A 15/30 type guy. But man, he looked SO far away from that this year, so I understand why people are more inclined to give up on him.

Especially when we're talking about trading Burnes, Adames(some have talked about Devin Williams) and Woodruff's status is up in the air. That's pretty much all the Brewers can count on. And it's not just Black and Wilken, it's one of the best farm systems in Baseball. Also...I understand prospects fail, they're busts ALL the time. That's why you get them for nearly 7 years of team control. The alternative is what exactly? Trading for proven young players? Why would a team that actually wants Burnes and is a contender want to do that though? Is AZ ever going to trade a Corbin Carroll for a guy with one year of team control? Obviously not. You suggested a player like Yelich IIRC? The Yelich we traded for who was ~27 and had 3 years of team control but not a superstar, just a really good 4-5 WAR player. Again, why would a team that's trading him away want Burnes? The Brewers aren't putting all their eggs in the Wilken/Black basket. They have a lot of other young talent...but they're also both young players who were highly regarded who have done nothing but hit since they've been drafted. And we'll have half a dozen players right behind them in Boeve, Adams, Bitonti, Pratt, Baez...Devanney is already in AAA, has a great glove and hit well in AAA. There is no way to build a WS team in Milwaukee without draft and develop(or sign and develop)...which is why what David Stearns did in re-building(and actually just building) a Dominican club was so incredibly important.

Yeah, they are in the worst position of any team in the division. They might still be better than the Bears, but that's just worse for them. They don't have much cap room, Cousins is a FA, Hunter a FA. So...I feel like he's just trying to talk a little while he still can...and might as well let him. Hey, they do have a GREAT WRer....who will probably get ~35M a year. Kinda like living in a trailer and having a Bugatti in the driveway, but at least they've got that!

I can't think of a team that'd both do that and want to trade for one year of Corbin Burnes. They're at cross purposes....which is why there is a pretty standard formula here. I guess if I was pressed, I'd say you could argue for a Braves trade that includes Michael Harris II type player. The problem there is he has SO much more value than Burnes, you'd have to start adding prospects to send back to the Braves. That's assuming they'd even consider a trade like that. But moving closer to someone who's been really good, that type of production, has ~3 years of team control left...I couldn't come up with a name. To be fair, I haven't spent too much time looking for one, so perhaps someone else could, but I'm just of the opinion you shouldn't worry about 2024 and take a micro view, this trade should be made by looking at what's best for the Brewers through 2030 rather than 2024 and their immediate needs. A position not all posters hold. I also think the Brewers can be confident their Minor League System is strong and choose to add to it. It allows for them to be more need driven perhaps rather than just taking back the BPA. They can target certain young arms. Or maybe they won't even do that, I don't know. But prospects with nearly 7 years of team control are so valuable, they don't all have to end up on the field for us. I'd also argue the best way to get a top farm system and then more importantly, maintain it is by making these type of moves. Really just adding talent through the three main options available. LA, MLB draft, trading star players they can't afford.

Ok...my mistake. I see what you were saying. He's a healthy, 28 year old pitcher who led the NL in Whip, 2nd in BAA, 5th in ERA and he's got a Cy Young recently, relatively few innings. When(if) a team trades for him, how is he going to be described? "____acquire Cy Young winner Corbin Burnes." But I guess how he's described is less important than the return...which hopefully brings back at least one high ceiling arm in the upper levels and a couple more in the lower levels.

Yeah, that'd be idea. If you're targeting pitching, you might only get one top 100 and then 2 more who are younger, high ceiling arms who are further away. I'm fine with that as well. Definitely not someone just to plug a hole for next year or a guy who has 3 years left and we're just going to find ourselves looking to trade him in 2 years(hopefully as we're getting ready to compete again) because we...don't want to lose that player for nothing. If Philly gets close and doesn't win again, they may be the team that's the most likely to give up a lot for Burnes/Williams. Hopefully they have a BP meltdown. Also...I just really hope it's not AZ and Philly in the NLCS as that's just gonna be hard to stomach.

I don't know that I'm replying to you specifically, but if you wanted Arcia back as piece of the Adames trade...then sure. You're not the only one who's brought him up or others have complained about him. And the options are in no way Turang/Monasterio OR Arica. So Arcia has two years of team control. I don't think the Braves would feel like there's much excess value, we know him, he's not much(if any) of an upgrade on what we have, he has two years of team control left, 1 more than Adames and the Braves had arguably the best lineup in MLB History this past season and they can bring every player back next year. So I don't see them being all that motivated to swap out their worst hitter for Adames and give up much prospect value. I remember someone say if we're going to actually be competitive, we can't just spend the off-season, "plugging dikes." Wish I remember who it was, but they were right. We're trading Burnes, we're trading Adames...but in those trades or any trades, we have to make CERTAIN that we have a guy who put up a 1.6 WAR this year(same as Turang, .3 better than Monasterio in ~200 fewer ABs)? Getting back less prospects or controllable talent so we can get a one year insurance policy whilst also trading Burnes, Adames(maybe not having Woodruff)...what is the goal there? 80 wins instead of 78? So to answer your question(pretending to accept the premise is true that it's an either or)...no, I'd rather go with the two guys who were rookies this year than to play around the fringes while we trade away a Cy Young pitcher, our power hitting SS and our other TOR arm possibly spends a good chunk of next year coming back from a shoulder injury. At the very least, his future is in the air at this point. Again, I'd trade for the best young controllable talent I could get for Burnes, Adames, Williams if there is a market for him that makes it make sense, and look at '25 as a more likely starting point to try and return to being a competitive team, hopefully with 3-4 more young guys who are either part of the team or on their way.

It was Gasser for Goldschmidt and Burnes traded to pay for Goldy. I just cannot wrap my head around that approach. If you're gonna add Goldy, trade for him, but then one year of a power hitting 1B, you may as well keep Burnes. This balancing where you are adding some offense and taking away some pitching...and in this case, you're also trading the most likely replacement for Burnes. But I've even seen Arcia(who has 1 year left) as a suggestion for an Adames trade. Feels like half measures.

No reason to. That's the name of the Stadium where the Brewers play...and if you tell me otherwise, I will plug my ears and make childish sounds.

Of course you wouldn't. When does a team trade a Cy Young winning pitcher in his prime and get back a prospect who's going to immediately approximate his value that next season? If that's the standard, you're never going to be happy with the return. An arm like Frasso or Stone could easily be plugged into the rotation for the next nearly 7 years, and you likely get a couple lower level fliers back as well. There's also Bobby Miller, Pepiot...though I doubt we get either back.

Ok...I'm not speculating on rumors and this thread is...fairly easy to follow;

And there's still no reason to agree to that on Woodruff's side. The Brewers get him locked in at what he'd make either way(the very minimum of what he'd make) and he gets...what he'd get either way? That really doesn't make sense unless you get a buyout and then I'm pretty sure you can't decline the option and make a QO. The upside for Woodruff doesn't change but the downside changes massively.

You have to at least see what is available. It's just not lining up with Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta and then the next core. If you can get a guy like Painter from Philly for Burnes and Williams, I'd take that and two young guys who are fliers My thinking is pretty simple. This era of the Brewers is over and we're quickly coming up on the next one, it's not going to overlap, we can pretty much see that now. This was also the impetus for me suggesting another move that I've said from the jump was VERY unlikely to happen, but it's pretty simple. What's the best chance to win a WS? A dynamic offense with Chourio, Contreras, Quero(both or you trade one), Frelick, Wilken, Black, Mitchell, Turang and Wiemer(I still believe both are going to be 3-4 WAR players Wiemer could be significantly higher at his peak). At the same time here, you've got another pretty significant wave of talent coming through that at least as of now is pretty highly regarded. So looking forward and I feel like we're pretty well set up offensively, we're pretty well set up with our BP, and guys will always step up in both places, but especially the Bullpen. The rotation is the question mark. Gasser, Rodriguez both look like really good #3/4 starters. Peralta is a #2/3 on a WS caliber team. Ashby has Ace upside, but the dreaded shoulder. Misiorowski has deGrom like potential, but so clearly has a very low floor as well. So I'm just in favor at this point of a clean slate and doing what we can to add to an elite farm system. That was the impetus for another trade proposal I suggested while stating it was incredibly unlikely. But I don't want this tepid BS. Don't try and appease the fans so you can sell 2.4M tickets. You'll sell tickets if you have a great team and if you've got a 40/70 player and you've got a stacked lineup(and even more so if you sign him early in his career so you know he's there through his 20s). I think moving to the next chapter is the better move and as much of a clean slate(while adding as many assets) as possible is the best way to go.

Ok, you're talking about the likelihood he's productive again. He's talking about his earning potential. Unless non-tendering him is on the table, then lets say he misses the entire '24 season due to surgery. What do you think he'd get as a FA? Is it more or less than 5M dollars for a former Ace coming off a shoulder injury? I think we could agree it'd be well over 5M for a team like the Dodgers or...whomever. So 2/20 is probably not worth it for Woodruff at this point. You'd need at least 2/28 to thread the needle most likely. We'll see 1st if he needs surgery as I haven't heard thus far that he will. Exactly. Surgery, a full year off and he'd still safely get 10M.

I gave this a thumbs up...because I agree! I give a thumbs down if I disagree. It's not much more than that. I tend to post a lot. Others aren't as vocal. I'd prefer(usually) if you expanded on your opinion, but...if people don't want to, so be it.